Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes common sense to have engine sizes standardized, right?
Yet, you have wide spread of engine sizes across manufacturers, sometimes going in decimals of liter.
3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and so on, as an example.
Why exactly is all this variety of engine sizes?
I get it, larger engines for larger cars, I get it. Or, for horsepower.
But why it all can't be say 3.0, 3.5, for example?
What's with all those odd sizes? Google almighty keeps mum on this....
Car manufacturers usually improve their engine sizes incrementally, starting with previous engines. So to get 30 more horsepower, they'll bore out last years motor, and make it a lil more powerful.
But you cant focus on the liter sizes. You have to test drive them and see if you like everything else about the car. Im pretty sure if they went up half a liter they have to build a new motor, and that isnt cost friendly.
Nah, I care less about test driving them. I am standard guy, I like standards. That's why it makes me wonder, why is there such strange sometimes size spread.
Remember when engines came in cubic inches? Ford was 351 while GM was 350. It just continues from a long, long way in the past.
As a note, Pontiac 350 parts didn't necessarily exchange with Chevy 350 parts.
Well yeah, sure, not being able to interchange parts is one of the ways to sell more of them.
But neither 0.1L nor 1 Inch cubic does any noticeable difference, outside of complicating production and supply chain, really.
Well yeah, sure, not being able to interchange parts is one of the ways to sell more of them.
But neither 0.1L nor 1 Inch cubic does any noticeable difference, outside of complicating production and supply chain, really.
But that was back when supply chain issues weren't a concern. Good God (I don't know how old you are) but you should have heard the screaming, with follow on lawsuits, when it was discovered that Yes, GM did put some Chevy motors in Oldsmobiles (I think that was it. In any event they were interchanging engines between brands).
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
Options are great, so that you can buy what suits your needs and driving style the best. Take for example the best selling vehicle, Ford F150. For the frugal, there is the basic 3.3 V6 with 290 horsepower and 265 lb.-ft. of torque.
Then the 3.5 Ecoboost with 375 horsepower and best-in-class* 470 lb.-ft. of torque, which is the best gas engine for towing. The Raptor has the same engine but with twin turbos for 450 horsepower and 510 lb.-ft. of torque, of interest to the muscle car truck enthusiast.
Most of them are sold with the little and most efficient 2.7 Ecoboost V6, which still has 325 horsepower and 400 lb.-ft. of torque.
For the serious tow vehicle (11,500 lbs.) there is now a 3.0 Power Stroke Diesel, 250 horsepower at 3,250 rpm and 440 lb.-ft. of torque, and gets 30 highway mpg.
Finally there is the engine I have on mine, the 5.0 Coyote V8 with 395 horsepower and 400 lb.-ft. of torque. For me a good compromise on towing and hauling, and the unmistakable sound of a V8.
Remember when engines came in cubic inches? Ford was 351 while GM was 350. It just continues from a long, long way in the past.
As a note, Pontiac 350 parts didn't necessarily exchange with Chevy 350 parts.
this. in addition to the pontiac and chevy 350, the olds 350 was also a different motor. or take the 455 olds, buick, and pontiac engines, they were all the same size, but different bores and strokes.
as to a uniformity of engine displacements, thats not going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes. each manufacturers engineering departments set the parameters of performance and fuel economy, along with longevity, and then decide on what bore/stroke combination will fit those parameters, and then build an engine accordingly.
and some engines are built to a sanctioning bodies allowed displacement. for instance back in the 60s the trans am racing series had two engine displacements allowed, an under 2.5 liter class, and an under 5.0 liter class. and the engines were required to come from the manufacturer that way. no taking an off the shelf motor and changing the internals to get that displacement. so chevy took a 327 block and put a 283 crank in it, and came up with the 302 chevy. ford stroked the 289 a bit. pontiac lied and said that canadian trans ams came with the chevy 302 in them. chrysler just used their 273 motor and bidded their time until the rules changed in 1970 to allow the use of any block and the internals could be changed to get the 5.0 liter limit.
Well yeah, sure, not being able to interchange parts is one of the ways to sell more of them.
But neither 0.1L nor 1 Inch cubic does any noticeable difference, outside of complicating production and supply chain, really.
This is not your area of knowledge is it...
First of all it's all rounding
Next, standardizing between manufacturers??? Really?
Honda B18A1 is a 1.8L, 81mm x 89mm. 1834467 mm^3 (1.834467 L) 111.9 cid
Mazda K8 is a 1.8L, 75mm x 69.6mm V6. 1844900.29 mm^3 (1.8449 L) 112.6 cid
Ford Duratec/Mazda L8 is a 1.8L, 83mm x 83.1mm. 1798486 mm^3 (1.798486 L) 109.75 cid
Yet those are all 1.8L engines and NOTHING is standard between the three, and there are tens of thousands of cubic millimeters in displacement different between the three.
IF a company could simplify their offerings, they would. That would make more money.
But lets talk about that Honda B18A1. It was in the Integra GS. All 1.8L B series heads fit all other 1.8L B series. The B18A1, 130hp block can fit the head off a 200hp B18C from an Integra Type-R. ALL B series engines use the same intake and exhaust manifold flanges. The bore is the same so cranks could get swapped
The Honda K20 engine was epic they once were the premier builder of 4 bangers... To bad they went to low rev turbo solutions as they could have really pushed the boundaries of NA performance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
